BACKGROUND: Search filters are standardised sets of search terms, with validated performance, that are designed to retrieve studies with specific characteristics. A cost-utility analysis (CUA) is the preferred type of economic evaluation to underpin decision-making at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Until now, when searching for economic evidence for NICE guidelines, we have used a broad set of health economic-related search terms, even when the reviewer's interest is confined to CUAs alone.
METHODS: We developed search filters to retrieve CUAs from MEDLINE and Embase. Our aim was to achieve recall of 90% or better across both databases while reducing the overall yield compared with our existing broad economic filter. We used the relative recall method along with topic expert input to derive and validate 3 pairs of filters, assessed by their ability to identify a gold-standard set of CUAs that had been used in published NICE guidelines. We developed and validated MEDLINE and Embase filters in pairs (testing whether, when used together, they find target studies in at least 1 database), as this is how they are used in practice. We examined the proxy-precision of our new filters by comparing their overall yield with our previous approach using publications indexed in a randomly selected year (2010).
RESULTS: All 3 filter-pairs exceeded our target recall and led to substantial improvements in search proxy-precision. Our paired 'sensitive' filters achieved 100% recall (95% CI 99.0 to 100%) in the validation set. Our paired 'precise' filters also had very good recall (97.6% [95%CI: 95.4 to 98.9%]). We estimate that, compared with our previous search strategy, using the paired 'sensitive' filters would reduce reviewer screening burden by a factor of 5 and the 'precise' versions would do so by a factor of more than 20.
CONCLUSIONS: Each of the 3 paired cost-utility filters enable the identification of almost all CUAs from MEDLINE and Embase from the validation set, with substantial savings in screening workload compared to our previous search practice. We would encourage other researchers who regularly use multiple databases to consider validating search filters in combination as this will better reflect how they use databases in their everyday work.
BACKGROUND: Many systematic reviews exist on interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers, but research is distributed across diseases, populations and settings. The scope and focus of such reviews also vary widely, creating challenges for decision-makers seeking to inform decisions by using the evidence on consumers’ medicines use.
This is an update of a 2011 overview of systematic reviews, which synthesises the evidence, irrespective of disease, medicine type, population or setting, on the effectiveness of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions which target healthcare consumers to promote safe and effective medicines use, by synthesising review-level evidence.
SEARCH METHODS: We included systematic reviews published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. We identified relevant reviews by handsearching databases from their start dates to March 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We screened and ranked reviews based on relevance to consumers’ medicines use, using criteria developed for this overview.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standardised forms to extract data, and assessed reviews for methodological quality using the AMSTAR tool. We used standardised language to summarise results within and across reviews; and gave bottom-line statements about intervention effectiveness. Two review authors screened and selected reviews, and extracted and analysed data. We used a taxonomy of interventions to categorise reviews and guide syntheses.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 75 systematic reviews of varied methodological quality. Reviews assessed interventions with diverse aims including support for behaviour change, risk minimisation and skills acquisition. No reviews aimed to promote systems-level consumer participation in medicines-related activities. Medicines adherence was the most frequently-reported outcome, but others such as knowledge, clinical and service-use outcomes were also reported. Adverse events were less commonly identified, while those associated with the interventions themselves, or costs, were rarely reported.
Looking across reviews, for most outcomes, medicines self-monitoring and self-management programmes appear generally effective to improve medicines use, adherence, adverse events and clinical outcomes; and to reduce mortality in people self-managing antithrombotic therapy. However, some participants were unable to complete these interventions, suggesting they may not be suitable for everyone.
Other promising interventions to improve adherence and other key medicines-use outcomes, which require further investigation to be more certain of their effects, include:
· simplified dosing regimens: with positive effects on adherence;
· interventions involving pharmacists in medicines management, such as medicines reviews (with positive effects on adherence and use, medicines problems and clinical outcomes) and pharmaceutical care services (consultation between pharmacist and patient to resolve medicines problems, develop a care plan and provide follow-up; with positive effects on adherence and knowledge).
Several other strategies showed some positive effects, particularly relating to adherence, and other outcomes, but their effects were less consistent overall and so need further study. These included:
· delayed antibiotic prescriptions: effective to decrease antibiotic use but with mixed effects on clinical outcomes, adverse effects and satisfaction;
· practical strategies like reminders, cues and/or organisers, reminder packaging and material incentives: with positive, although somewhat mixed effects on adherence;
· education delivered with self-management skills training, counselling, support, training or enhanced follow-up; information and counselling delivered together; or education/information as part of pharmacist-delivered packages of care: with positive effects on adherence, medicines use, clinical outcomes and knowledge, but with mixed effects in some studies;
· financial incentives: with positive, but mixed, effects on adherence.
Several strategies also showed promise in promoting immunisation uptake, but require further study to be more certain of their effects. These included organisational interventions; reminders and recall; financial incentives; home visits; free vaccination; lay health worker interventions; and facilitators working with physicians to promote immunisation uptake. Education and/or information strategies also showed some positive but even less consistent effects on immunisation uptake, and need further assessment of effectiveness and investigation of heterogeneity.
There are many different potential pathways through which consumers' use of medicines could be targeted to improve outcomes, and simple interventions may be as effective as complex strategies. However, no single intervention assessed was effective to improve all medicines-use outcomes across all diseases, medicines, populations or settings.
Even where interventions showed promise, the assembled evidence often only provided part of the picture: for example, simplified dosing regimens seem effective for improving adherence, but there is not yet sufficient information to identify an optimal regimen.
In some instances interventions appear ineffective: for example, the evidence suggests that directly observed therapy may be generally ineffective for improving treatment completion, adherence or clinical outcomes.
In other cases, interventions may have variable effects across outcomes. As an example, strategies providing information or education as single interventions appear ineffective to improve medicines adherence or clinical outcomes, but may be effective to improve knowledge; an important outcome for promoting consumers' informed medicines choices.
Despite a doubling in the number of reviews included in this updated overview, uncertainty still exists about the effectiveness of many interventions, and the evidence on what works remains sparse for several populations, including children and young people, carers, and people with multimorbidity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This overview presents evidence from 75 reviews that have synthesised trials and other studies evaluating the effects of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use.
Systematically assembling the evidence across reviews allows identification of effective or promising interventions to improve consumers’ medicines use, as well as those for which the evidence indicates ineffectiveness or uncertainty.
Decision makers faced with implementing interventions to improve consumers' medicines use can use this overview to inform decisions about which interventions may be most promising to improve particular outcomes. The intervention taxonomy may also assist people to consider the strategies available in relation to specific purposes, for example, gaining skills or being involved in decision making. Researchers and funders can use this overview to identify where more research is needed and assess its priority. The limitations of the available literature due to the lack of evidence for important outcomes and important populations, such as people with multimorbidity, should also be considered in practice and policy decisions.
A best evidence topic was written according to a structured protocol, to answer the question: 'In patients taking warfarin, is home self-monitoring of international normalized ratio (INR) safer than clinic-based testing in reducing bleeding, thrombotic events and death?' Altogether, 268 papers were found using the reported search. Five papers represented the highest level of evidence to answer the clinical question (four systematic reviews with meta-analysis and one meta-analysis). The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. The principal outcomes of interest were death, major haemorrhage, major thromboembolism, and time (or percentage time) spent within the therapeutic range, compared between self-monitoring/self-management and conventional management. Self-monitoring/self-management was associated with a significantly reduced risk of all-cause mortality of 26-42%. All meta-analyses reported on major thromboembolism, finding significant reductions in risk of ~50%. One meta-analysis found a 35% reduction in the risk of major haemorrhage, with the other four studies finding no significant difference. Only one study found self-monitoring/self-management to be associated with a significantly greater proportion of time within range, with another finding no significant difference in either the percentage of therapeutic results or in the time within range. The remaining two could not combine data for meta-analysis owing to methodological heterogeneity. We conclude that self-monitoring/self-management appears to be safer than conventional management. It is associated with consistently lower rates of thromboembolism and may also be associated with reduced risk of bleeding and death. This supports the updated guidance from the American College of Chest Physicians, recommending self-management of INR for patients who are both competent and motivated.
INTRODUCTION: Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism may occur in almost 2 in 1000 people each year, with up to 25% of those having a recurrence. Around 5% to 15% of people with untreated DVT may die from pulmonary embolism. Risk factors for DVT include immobility, surgery (particularly orthopaedic), malignancy, pregnancy, older age, and inherited or acquired prothrombotic clotting disorders.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments for proximal DVT? What are the effects of treatments for isolated calf DVT? What are the effects of treatments for pulmonary embolism? What are the effects of interventions on oral anticoagulation management in people with thromboembolism? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS: We found 45 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: anticoagulation; compression stockings; low molecular weight heparin (short and long term, once or twice daily, and home treatment); oral anticoagulants (short and long term, high intensity, abrupt discontinuation, and computerised decision support); prolonged duration of anticoagulation; thrombolysis; vena cava filters; and warfarin.
Search filters are standardised sets of search terms, with validated performance, that are designed to retrieve studies with specific characteristics. A cost-utility analysis (CUA) is the preferred type of economic evaluation to underpin decision-making at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Until now, when searching for economic evidence for NICE guidelines, we have used a broad set of health economic-related search terms, even when the reviewer's interest is confined to CUAs alone.
METHODS:
We developed search filters to retrieve CUAs from MEDLINE and Embase. Our aim was to achieve recall of 90% or better across both databases while reducing the overall yield compared with our existing broad economic filter. We used the relative recall method along with topic expert input to derive and validate 3 pairs of filters, assessed by their ability to identify a gold-standard set of CUAs that had been used in published NICE guidelines. We developed and validated MEDLINE and Embase filters in pairs (testing whether, when used together, they find target studies in at least 1 database), as this is how they are used in practice. We examined the proxy-precision of our new filters by comparing their overall yield with our previous approach using publications indexed in a randomly selected year (2010).
RESULTS:
All 3 filter-pairs exceeded our target recall and led to substantial improvements in search proxy-precision. Our paired 'sensitive' filters achieved 100% recall (95% CI 99.0 to 100%) in the validation set. Our paired 'precise' filters also had very good recall (97.6% [95%CI: 95.4 to 98.9%]). We estimate that, compared with our previous search strategy, using the paired 'sensitive' filters would reduce reviewer screening burden by a factor of 5 and the 'precise' versions would do so by a factor of more than 20.
CONCLUSIONS:
Each of the 3 paired cost-utility filters enable the identification of almost all CUAs from MEDLINE and Embase from the validation set, with substantial savings in screening workload compared to our previous search practice. We would encourage other researchers who regularly use multiple databases to consider validating search filters in combination as this will better reflect how they use databases in their everyday work.
